Straight Ball Sight | The real goal of England in the European Cup is really not in the "South Gate"

Yingxian said

2024-07-01 16:02Former reporter of the International Department of Sports Weekly, senior sports creator

First of all, I think England are playing poorly and can't completely dump the pot on Southgate – it really depends on what we think they 'are worse'.

In my personal opinion, England's "difference" is not in the technical and tactical aspects, but in the level of thinking and fighting spirit - everyone is trying to play in a "non-risky" way, and the result is lethargic and non-threatening attack. England's attack was slow and sluggish, and this bad atmosphere started from the backline, to Rice, to Trippier Walker on both wings, and then to Foden Belling up front - to be honest, to evaluate the whole England team from the aspect of "daring to take risks", then it is certain to say that one is accurate, and none of them pass.

Trippier, Behring and Foden are the big ones who have been "hard-pulled" here, but they have their own problems-

Trippier is mainly in poor form, all his passes on the left side have to be reversed to the right foot, not to mention, the actual effect is not very good; In the opening stage, a shot from Bellin's wonderful pass into the penalty area was directly put into the "cupola" (note that it was not an "anti-aircraft gun", but a complete "cupola").

The role of Belin and Foden, who are free men up front, dictates that they must be adventurous - but in fact, Foden's style of play and position are incompatible with the whole team today, and Belling has fallen into the opponent's marking and confrontation more than ten times in the whole game, and their actual value to England today is not at all an attacking threat, but a set-piece creation.

So, overall, England didn't make any real progress from the group stage – but we can't say Southgate didn't improve, at least he knew that starting Mainou had done well; The decision to make a substitution is starting to become normal: Palmer is replaced first, and then everyone else – something I personally agree with.

Because England don't really have any set tactics to speak of, all Southgate can do is 'put the best players on the pitch' – an opinion (or observation) that I've always insisted on. So, the improvement of Palmer's substitution order and the decision to start for Maynu, I think it can already be considered an improvement for Southgate.

But is that enough?

Let's talk about the changes Southgate has made in terms of substitutions and tactical adjustments -

In terms of substitutions, Southgate made a total of four decisions, of which the first three were the most relevant for England to change the situation of the game: Palmer for the injured Kieran Trippier in the 66th minute, Eze for Mainou in the 84th minute, and Ivan Tony for Foden in the 93rd minute.

The 106-minute exchange of Konsa and Conor Gallagher for Kane and Belin respectively was completely conservative after the lead. Above.

Although we don't see a lot of substitutions at the south gate, it can be said that there are quite significant tactical changes every time (the effect is not mentioned here, I said that England has no tactics at all) -

For example, Palmer's appearance directly allowed Saka to "return" to his old profession: full-back, and he was left and right.

For example, Eze for Menu, at this time England is behind Kane Eze, Belling, Foden, Palmer lined up, it can be said that it is a 4141 formation, this kind of adventure is less than 10 minutes.

After Toney came on, there were only three minutes left before the regular time - this was the most valuable one from a strategic point of view: England changed the formation of 442, Tony Kane entered the box with two central strikers, Belling-Rice behind the two, and Palmer and Eze on the wings - in the 442 system, England completed a big comeback with two goals in less than three minutes and won the game in one fell swoop. However, Kane and Belling's fuel tanks were really at the bottom, and this tactic only lasted until the end of the first half of extra time, and it can be said that it only played for less than 20 minutes in total.

In the final 15 minutes, England changed their back five again: Bukayo Saka returned to the right, Vauxstonesgoy defended the box, Konsa was on the left, Rice Gallagher was in the middle, Palmer Eze was on the left and right, and Toni was up front. This tactic is actually very ugly and conservative, and I think it is just that the English are lucky in some details, and if some mistakes are caught by Slovakia, the consequences will be unimaginable.

But winning a game always says something about it, for example – at least we can assume that England can make very complex tactical changes in extremely difficult circumstances and that the players are doing well at the execution level.

So what exactly should we say about Southgate? Is it the adventure of allowing Maynu and Palmer to increase their playing time, or is it a last-minute return to ugly football that "just hold on"? Did he choose Ivan Toney that ultimately led to the victory, or did he give Foden too long for England to "almost send"?

I think it's a dilemma. Because Gareth Southgate has managed to turn his coaching into an agnostic of pure luck.

I wrote an observation of Behring before the Ings game, saying that "Southgate has no tactical arrangement for England at all, and can only rely on the players to talk and play with each other, so there is a lot of risk in playing good and bad". I think it's still relevant at the moment.

Once you recognise that, you can conclude that Southgate is really just putting together the best players possible to "talk and play" and constantly try to improve the combination through actual matches. In order to achieve this, it is impossible for him to arrange any fixed tactics and routines - let's just say that Foden, Belling, Palm, Mersaka, and these people have almost completely overlapping positions, except for closing your eyes and playing them all out, how else can you arrange them?

And what should be done about the "ideological fighting spirit problem" and "dare not take risks" problems mentioned at the beginning? The answer is no. Obviously, this is not something Southgate is capable of solving: all the players in England are neither structured nor in their prime-form – and you can't afford to ignore the burden that the season has just put on you. This question is in fact the most crucial factor in determining the future of England.

So based on the above facts and opinions, I can conclude that Southgate won by luck and gambling. But what the next one will look like, only God knows.

Maybe the Slovak players are still inferior to England at their individual level, right? That's why Southgate's gamble won this time – but against a team like Switzerland, which is definitely not inferior to England in terms of individual ability and is far more organised than England, can he win again?

Given that watching England is getting more and more uncomfortable and hypnotic, I don't think it's better to be optimistic. Watching England with a loving attitude and wanting Switzerland to win is probably more comfortable for you to watch.

That's all I can do for you.

View original image 159K

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•